GCC 3.2 ABI changes
stepan at suse.de
Mon Oct 21 16:37:01 CEST 2002
* Steve M. Gehlbach <steve at nexpath.com> [021021 22:34]:
> gcc 2.96 is not a real release, more of a redhat branch off the 3.0 dev tree
> that gnu disavows. There are notes somewhere about this but I couldn't
> quickly find the link.
Which is understandable from their point of view, keeping the user base
at a certain level to gain reliable input. On the other hand back when
Redhat started using gcc 2.96, it was the only compiler that was
actually usable on most no-x86 platforms. (This does not apply for the
first release they packed with their distribution, but anything later
proved to be worlds better than gcc 2.95, i.e. on Alpha, Sparc, ...
gcc 2.96 was also the first compiler to support Itanium)
> I would consider anything that 2.96 does or does not
> do, to be a laboratory curiosity. Can you compile a linux kernel with
> either 2.96 or 3.2?
The 2.2 kernel needs a lot of fixes to go through 3.2, but compiles and
works great with 2.96. For Kernel 2.4 both are perfectly ok.
> I think debian installs 2.95.4, but also has a 3.0 version. I use 2.95.x
> and have no problems.
If LinuxBIOS is up to support non-intel platforms, gcc 3 should be
considered a must. If you get anywhere with 2.95.x on those platforms,
you are really lucky.
The x86 isn't all that complex - it just doesn't make a lot of
sense. -- Mike Johnson, Leader of 80x86 Design at AMD
Microprocessor Report (1994)
More information about the coreboot